Assessment | JF-17 Thunder, a 21st century F-20 Tigershark ?

[VCheng]

Good omen

Some tables here may interest you:

JF-17: The hype and the reality | PakWheels Blog

(The article itself was written for a different audience. )

===================

Summary:

The JF-17 represents an important advance for both PAF and Pakistan, from relying on jetfighter technology of the 50s and 60s, to at least the 70s and 80s. It is not a state-of-the art airplane by any means, and its design and manufacture will continue to rely on several foreign countries for years to come. However, the basic design is well suited to the needs of the PAF, and if further development can be integrated with the critical transfer of technologies needed to indigenize design and manufacture of jet aircraft and related military capabilities, then this project does indeed have the potential to act as the kernel around which such projects may be able to grow in the future.

 

[Kompromat]

@VCheng

A bird in a hand is better than 9 in the bush.

Jitna gudr untdra mitha!

 

[HAIDER]

Good work Aero , but isn't F20 a failed project. Emergence of F16A has killed Northrop dream .Plane was heavy and has complex system, which one of cause of failure

 

[Superboy]

Good work Aero , but isn't F20 a failed project. Emergence of F16A has killed Northrop dream .Plane was heavy and has complex system, which one of cause of failure

Big countries like America and China would not operate a light fighter. Hence F-20 never found service in the US air force. Another caveat was that, for some bizarre reason, Northrop was not allowed to independently market F-20 to other countries. Only the State Department was able to do that, and it had no intention of doing so.

Gotta love Northrop's F-20 promo. America's power truly peaked in the mid 70s to the mid 80s era.

I agree, it's a bad comparison. The F-20 is a design that is older than I am! It was just the latest updated version of the F-5 that first flew in 1959.

F-5A Philippine Air Force

F-20 has unstable design which F-5 does not have, and is consequently much more maneuverable than F-5. The F-5 / F-20 design is not bad. To me, it looks a lot more sleeker than F-35 which is simply fat and bulky.

 

[Kompromat]

@HAIDER

F-20 wasn't a 'failure'. It was much cheaper than the F-16 and outperformed the F-16 in some aspects. They used it in the movie Topgun too.

It was a victim of American politics. It would have been a potent air craft and a competetion to the F-16 in the international market. General Dynamics didn't like it. They even sold F-16s to the US Navy at a loss to keep the F-20 out.

 

[slapshot]

@Aeronaut BTW Don't you think the model USA have is more productive. If we have few private companies trying to make planes and weapons they can provide better results due to competition. GOVT based institutions are more of liabilities Its amazing if we compare Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 two amazing beasts though YF-22 was selected by USAF.

 

[Superboy]

@HAIDER

F-20 wasn't a 'failure'. It was much cheaper than the F-16 and outperformed the F-16 in some aspects. They used it in the movie Topgun too.

It was a victim of American politics. It would have been a potent air craft and a competetion to the F-16 in the international market. General Dynamics didn't like it. They even sold F-16s to the US Navy at a loss to keep the F-20 out.

Northrop was a huge company, and F-5 sales were stellar. General Dynamics didn't have the political power to take on Northrop. As a light fighter, F-20 didn't have the combat radius required by the US air force. F-20 sales would have been stellar if Northrop was allowed to market the plane to overseas markets.

 

[GURU DUTT]

I am making one - im trying to do it jet by jet - between JFT and LCA for example. It means i can add much more detail without getting the reader overwhelmed by information.

My plan is to produce documents with these comparisons.

• JF-17 Block1 - Gripen
• JF-17 Block1 - Mirage-2000
• JF-17 Block1 - F-16
• JF-17 Block1 - Tejas
• JF-17 Block1 - KA-50

well dint get your point sir while mine was a simple queri any way please do go in detail if possible thanks

to start with how about a comparrision between light fughters in the sub continent
JF17 Blk 1 - Tejas MK 1 - Mirage - 2000 - F 16 BLK 52

Thanks in advance

 

[Superboy]

well dint get your point sir while mine was a simple queri any way please do go in detail if possible thanks

to start with how about a comparrision between light fughters in the sub continent
JF17 Blk 1 - Tejas MK 1 - Mirage - 2000 - F 16 BLK 52

Thanks in advance

JF-17 and Mirage 2000 can be compared since they are both light fighters. Tejas would have to wait till we know more about it, as it is not operational. F-16 and J-10 can be compared, being in the same size class.

 

[araz]

Actually, the JF-17 is from that era too, albeit with some development:

Pakistan & China’s JF-17 Fighter Program

Sino Defense reminds us that the JF-17/FC-1 ‘Xiaolong’ has a long history. The site recalls external link that China signed a $550 million agreement with Grumman in 1986 to modernise its J-7 fighter external link (MiG-21 copy) under the “Super-7″ upgrade project, with US and British firms competing to provide the engine and avionics. The project was canceled after the Tienanmen Square massacre, but Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation managed to continue the program with its own resources, and the project was eventually re-branded as FC-1 (Fighter China-1).

The next big step forward for FC-1 came when the USA imposed military export sanctions in response to Pakistan’s nuclear program, and to Chinese-Pakistani transfers of ballistic missile components. With spares for its top-of-the-line F-16s in question, and additional F-16s removed as an option, Pakistan sought help from its Chinese ally.

=========================

Edit: From Jane's Aircraft bible:

Vcheng
long time no see. You keeping well? My friend just because the chinese signed an agreement with grumen for the super 7 in 86 and subsequently PAF jooned the chinese in 99 makes it a totally different era . Alsothe super 7 has not got much in common with what is JFT today but the later is more influenced by the mig 33 programme. So your logic for once is limping a bit old friend.
Kind regards
Araz

 

[VCheng]

Vcheng
long time no see. You keeping well? My friend just because the chinese signed an agreement with grumen for the super 7 in 86 and subsequently PAF jooned the chinese in 99 makes it a totally different era . Alsothe super 7 has not got much in common with what is JFT today but the later is more influenced by the mig 33 programme. So your logic for once is limping a bit old friend.
Kind regards
Araz

There is no denying the significant development the platform has undergone, as I have mentioned time and again. But that the roots of the project and the basic airframe remain in the 80s quite firmly as well is equally clear, spun as much reality might be.

I hope you are well too.

 

[Kompromat]

There is no denying the significant development the platform has undergone, as I have mentioned time and again. But that the roots of the project and the basic airframe remain in the 80s quite firmly as well is equally clear, spun as much reality might be.

I hope you are well too.

We can agree that the 'itch' for JFT dates back to the 80s

 

[VCheng]

We can agree that the 'itch' for JFT dates back to the 80s

Many itches date from that era, including missile technology. Pakistan has made great strides in those, and much development of the basic platform upon which the JF-17 is based, yes, agreed.

 

[shuntmaster]

Just found this interesting information..
F-17 THUNDER (FC-1/ Super-7)

Type: Single seat Multi-role Day/Night all weather light weight Fighter

History:

The origins of Super-7 programme can be traced back to the early 1980s, when Pakistan was looking for a new fighter to replace the F-6. The PAF initiated project Sabre II, to upgrade the Chengdu F-7M with a Western engine and Avionics. In January 1987, Grumman Aerospace of US was selected as the main contractor and several other western companies competed to provide the engine and avionics. However, by 1989 the project costs had escalated and the project was deemed a high financial risk by the PAF. In addition, the Chinese relations with the West broke down following the Tiananmen Square protest. Therefore the “Sabre II” project was cancelled. However, Chengdu continued it efforts to improve the F-7M airframe by re-designing air intakes on the sides of the fuselage etc. hence the name Super-7.

The PAF opted for a less ambitious option of acquiring the F-7P Skybolt, an upgraded version of the F-7M. The programme was to support the fleet of F-7P Skybolts with over a 100 F-16 Fighting Falcons.

In the meantime the US was frustrated with Pakistan 's refusal to stop its nuclear weapons development programme and in1990, US imposed military and economic sanctions under the Pressler amendments. This prevented the delivery of F-16s to the PAF, which Pakistan had already paid for.

The PAF was still looking for a modern and capable aircraft to replace the F-6. In February 1992 China Aero Technology Import Corporation invited the PAF to invest in the FC-1 programme, in return Pakistan would enjoy exclusive co-production rights. The PAF got Government approval in October1994 and Pakistan joined the FC-1 programme in1995. Pakistan was to select a Western company by the end of 1995 to provide and integrate the avionics for the FC-1. A letter of Intent (LOI) was signed between Pakistan and China in February 1998 covering airframe development, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation was selected as primary contractor and Mikoyan Aero-Science Production Group of Russia was contracted to provide the Klimov RD-93 turbofan engine.

The design work progressed very slowly over the next 18 months due to the US and Western sanctions against Pakistan following Pakistan 's nuclear tests in May 1998. This also prevented delivery of any avionic systems to the PAF from Western companies.

In June 1999 Pakistan and China signed a joint development and production agreement to co-develop the FC-1 on a 50-50 partnership. As stated above the project was moving extremely slowly, until in 2001 when the PAF made a major decision to separate the development of the platform from the avionic systems. From that moment on the project started to make progress. It is worth remembering that separating the development of airframe from the avionic systems in 2001 was largely due to the visionary approach of the late Air Chief Marshall Mushaf Ali Mir.

Pakistan named the aircraft “Thunder” and gave it the designation “JF-17” (Joint Fighter 17). The JF-17 will replace the current and aging fleet of A-5s, F-7s and Mirages by 2015. With its multi-role all weather ability the JF-17 is suitable for land, sea and air operations.

Hi,

It does not work like that---. China has a big shortage of air superiority fighters. It needs a lots of them----. They are way behind schedule for the numbers they need.

Pakistan otoh has what it needs in the form of F16's. China and pakistan's air defence doctrine is different due to geographical location of the enemy---for that reason---the needs and aircraft are different.

According to pakistan---their needs are satisfied by replacing Q5's. Mirage 3 and 5 and F7's with JF17's.

China may never need the JF17---.

Didn't the Chinese start the Super-7 program, which later became FC-1/JF-17, as an upgrade to their fleet of F-7's (MiG-21 copy)? PLAAF still has 100's of F-7s which are to be replaced.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Hi, there is problem with the comparison between F-20 and JF-17.

Before I even discuss, let me say just because an aircraft project came into certain era/time/year doesn't mean it would remain the same aircraft/technology through of its life cycle/age as VCheng tried to portray, it was a poor assessment on his part as a research/dev member. F-15 was conceived in 70's but it no longer is the same aircraft technologically and airframe wise there have been alot of additions/changes and use of composites lighter stronger airframe compared to 70's not to mention avionics/weapons and other systems/mechanics.

Even for the sake of comparison it can't be compared the project ended period. Just because it had GE Engine and AN-APG-67 doesn't qualify to be compared and given plus point over FC-1/JF-17.